Disposed¶46

M.Sundaram v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC28 Apr 2025WP/16165/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple shop allotment dispute; HR&CE Salem; Shop No.7 Prasatham/Prasadham shop; Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Jagir Ammapalayam; writ of mandamus under Article 226; preferential allotment versus public auction; annual fasli year auction; disposal of representation and written communication; Rs.8,51,000 highest bid by 4th respondent; third writ petition after eviction and arrears rounds; W.M.P.No.18294 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: respondents 2 & 3 directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation and convey their decision in writing within two weeks from receipt of web copy of the order, without waiting for certified copy; connected Miscellaneous Petition (W.M.P.No.18294 of 2025) closed; no order as to costs. ¶46

M.Sundaram Vs the Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 2 and 3 to allot Shop No.7 to run the Prasatham shop in Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem, to the petitioner, based on his representation dated 16.04.2025. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The earlier direction of this Court was only to consider the petitioner's request; it is open to the respondents to dispose of the representation and convey their decision in writing to the petitioner, and that exercise shall be completed within two weeks from receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy.

¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.), W.P.No.16165 of 2025, decided 28.04.2025: Third writ petition by M. Sundaram seeking a writ of mandamus under Article 226 against HR&CE officials (respondents 2 and 3) to allot Shop No.7 (Prasatham shop) in Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem, based on his representation dated 16.04.2025. An earlier writ (W.P.No.6063 of 2025, order dated 21.02.2025) had merely directed consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2025, permitting preference or matching of the highest quoted rent if allotted by public auction. The auction proceeded as scheduled: the 4th respondent (Govindraj) bid Rs.8,51,000/-, and although the petitioner, his son and daughter participated in the auction, they were unsuccessful; the respondents decided no preferential basis could be given since the shop is auctioned every fasli year. Holding that its earlier direction was only to consider the request, the Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation and convey their decision in writing within two weeks of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for certified copy. Writ petition disposed of; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.16165 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :28.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Writ Petition No.16165 of 2025 & W.M.P.No.18294 of 2025

¶7

M. Sundaram, M/a.50 years, S/o. Muthu, No.1496/2, B.G.Nagar, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem - 636 302.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

/versus/

¶10

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Salem District - 636 001.

¶11

2. . The Assistant Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Omalur Main Road, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem District - 636 302.

¶13

3. The Executive Officer,

¶14

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Omalur Main Road, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem District - 636 302.

¶15

1/7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.16165 of 2025

¶18

Govindraj, S/o. not known, Harur Main Road, Kuppanur, Ayothiapattinam, Salem Taluk and District.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to allot the Shop No.7 to run the Prasatham shop in Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem to the petitioner, based on the representation made by the petitioner on 16.4.2025.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Chandran, AGP, for R1 to R3

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The writ petition is filed challenging the respondents 2 & 3 to allot

¶25

Shop No.7 to run the Prasatham shop in Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem to the petitioner, based on their representation made by the petitioner on 16/4/2025.

¶26

2. Upon hearing the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it can be

¶27

seen that on an earlier round when the petitioner approached this Court by way

¶28

2/7

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.16165 of 2025

¶31

of W.P.No.6063 of 2025 by an order dated 21.02.2025, the writ petition was disposed of on the following terms.

¶32

“This is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner. Earlier, when the petitioner filed a writ petition with reference to his eviction, the eviction was confirmed and the petitioner was evicted. The second writ petition was filed with reference to the payment of arrears. Now, the learned counsel submits that the arrears have also been paid.

¶33

2. As far as this writ petition is concerned, there are two prayers. One is to allow the petitioner alongside the temporary shops to keep his Prashadham shop. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the temporary shops cannot be permitted in view of the fact that the Temple is abutting the national highways and all such temporary shops are being removed. Therefore, that part of the prayer cannot be countenanced by this court.

¶34

3. The other part of the prayer in the representation dated 19.01.2025 is that the Temple Authorities have put up regular shops in the place where the petitioner was originally conducting business and these shops are ready to be reallotted to third parties. The petitioner is only seeking a preference in respect of the allotment of the said shop. Therefore, with reference to the said prayer, it is for the respondents to consider the representation of the

¶35

3/7

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.16165 of 2025

¶38

petitioner dated 19.01.2025 in accordance with the rules and procedures and take a decision and in the event, they are willing to allot the shop to the petitioner on a preferential basis, the same can be intimated. Even otherwise if the shop has to be given only by way of public auction, a decision can also be taken on whether any preference can be given to the petitioner to match the highest quoted rent and to occupy the premises.”

¶39

3. After hearing both the learned counsels, it can be seen that the auction went ahead as per schedule and it is the 4^th respondent who bid for sum of Rs.8,51,000/-. On the same day, the petitioner made a representation stating that he would also deposit the said amount and requested to consider his case.

¶40

4. It is now stated by the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf the respondents 2 & 3 that the respondents considered the said request. The petitioner, his son and daughter participated in the auction. However, they were not successful.

¶41

5. Considering that the Prasadham shop is going to be auctioned in respect of every fasli year, the respondents have decided that there cannot be any preferential basis to the petitioner. Though the said submission is made,

¶42

4/7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.16165 of 2025

¶45

the earlier direction of this Court was only to consider the said request of the petitioner. It would be open for the respondents to dispose of the representation and convey the decision in writing to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of web copy of the order without waiting for the certified copy of this order.

¶46

6. In view thereof, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶47

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

28.04.2025

¶49

Neutral citation :No. bsm

¶50

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Salem District - 636 001.

¶51

. The Assistant Commissioner,

¶52

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Omalur Main Road, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem District - 636 302.

¶53

The Executive Officer,

¶54

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Omalur Main Road, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem District - 636 302.

¶55

5/7

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

W.P.No.16165 of 2025

¶58